PAK-DA: News

- An ICBM in the Topol-M class employ about 15-16 minutes from red button pressed to detonations of the thermonuclear re-entry vehicles in the enemy continental territory ,with an effective warning's window of the incoming attack for the opposing side variating, at best ,between 6 and 11 minutes.

And is a very drastic sledge hammer action from which there is no return.

ICBMs are not something you select as your first response to a problem... it is the LAST.

Without Bombers of course you are restricting yourself as to the options you have at your disposal to respond to the problem at hand.

Both sides have their defcon system of states of alert... the highest state involving the launching of a full scale nuclear attack... the point is that it is a level lower than this that bombers will be dispersed and loaded and manned,and slightly higher than this they will be in the air getting topped up by inflight refuelling aircraft and flying to their operational start positions... 6 minutes warning will be plenty because the bombers will not be in hangars or anywhere near their bases when the enemies ICBMs start landing on their bases.

moreover a single mid-air nuclear detonation above an airfield would not only destroy 100% of parked aircraft and majority of aboveground structures ,but would render any take-off from the attacked airfield absolutely impossible for weeks....( and a thermonuclear war would ,very likely, last no more than 30-40 minutes !!)

That cuts both ways however... a single nuclear warhead hidden in a satellite could easily be detonated above any point on the planet high in space in the Van Allen belts and create an enormous EMP effect over any air defence systems operational area. Even if the AD is hardened to protect it from such an attack the air will be ionised for at least 30 minutes making radar and radio communication useless... plenty of time for a slow lumbering subsonic bomber to slip through, and also plenty of time for a modern flying wing supercruising bomber to get within 5,000km of its target area and release a cruise missile... because 30 minutes after that EMP attack ICBMs and SLBMS will have done their damage too and by the time the bombers get to their launch positions there will not be much organisation left to stop the final blow... for either side.

For a conventional conflict without nukes we will likely have what we have now... both the US and Russia have bombers they can use against small states, but are not likely able to penetrate each others defences without serious risk.

Austin, the point raised by D. Rogozin is just that ,at today, a strategical bomber ,for itself, don't represent anymore a significative menace for any advanced nation and all its "deterrent" potential is instead exerted entirely by the very long range cruise missiles it cary (and also them lose theirs penetration potential at an incredible rate any year).

A bomber is no longer a bomber... it is a cruise missile platform... just like a sub can be a cruise missile platform or a SLBM carrying platform. Cruise missiles have the flexibility of using conventional warheads for tasks 30 years ago would have required a nuke or a large flight of vulnerable bombers carrying large amounts of bombs.

Precision guided weapons and indeed unusual weapons like the father of all bombs make the strategic bomber a much more flexible tool, and more multipurpose than the other two legs of the nuclear triad. SSBNs and ICBMs are deterrence tools to fend off armageddon. Strategic bombers can have a wide range of uses both as a deterrent and as a real tool of large and small wars.

The flight range and speed of a Tu-160 or Tu-95MS means that conventionally armed cruise missiles can be delivered to any point on the planet within a day with the precision to hit a particular house. Previously to hit such a target would need hundreds of bombers carrying enormous loads of bombs and there is still no guarantee that the house in question will be hit... so really the only way to be sure would be with a nuke.

The current situation is three very different aircraft with little actually in common, though with upgrades their radars and avionics will have some commonality, but components like engines and structures will be quite different.

A new aircraft that can perform the jobs these three aircraft currently perform with a modern low drag super cruising design would be well worth the money invested.

This new aircraft doesn't need to be super stealthy because by the time it flys over modern air defence systems either the cruise missiles will have been used to take down the AD, or the ICBMs and SLBMs will have done the same.

Being able to fly everywhere at mach 1.6 will greatly reduce transit times and could potentially lead to a new non stealthy civilian SST that is economically viable... just in time for the sillyness after the world economic recession...

The other part of detterent like ICBM and Submarine of more or less covert , Bomber is a visible and flexible deterrent value of Triad.

More importantly it is a political step that can be made and then unmade to test your opponents resolve... you can make a public display of returning your bombers to their bases to communicate to your enemy your intentions... you can't do that with subs unless your enemy can track your subs...

If instead you mean PGM -Precison Guided Munitions- to be used in local conflicts , the fleet of Su-34 and modernized SU-24M witht theirs new models of the KAB series ,the new UPAB and also the various models of Kh-38M will offerer a very wide option for this type of missions and at a very long range.

Su-34s and even Su-35s will offer excellent air to ground capability, but for larger weapons in the Russian arsenal like the FAB-3000, FAB-5000, FAB-9000 and Father of all bombs you need a larger aircraft to get the job done.


For a go in there and hit target x then the Su-34 would be ideal, but the PAK DA needs to combine extreme long range ( up to 15,000km with a relatively light payload of 12-24 tons... ie 6-12 2 ton cruise missiles) or a much heavier payload over a shorter range... say 40 tons over a 10,000km flight range. These performance figures roughly equate to the Tu-160s performance with the 12 Kh-101/102s internally and an inflight refuelling before leaving Russian air space and a tactical mission respectively.

There is no reason why a fairly modest payload of a range of weapon types and weights along with extra fuel could not be used to support even a single unit or base, with a PAK DA flying around a target area at low speed for days with a wide range of weapon types ready for use at a moments notice against a range of target types.

Internal carriage of weapons means low drag and low RCS and of course the size of the aircraft means larger sensors which should allow observation of the ground from higher safer altitudes, and simply the ability to carry a much wider range of weapons of different weights makes it more flexible.

An FAB-9000 from above 15km altitude would hit the ground with enormous energy even if it didn't explode...

Which was designed as an LPI system in large part to find mobile SS-25 TELs (which in turn became hugely amusing when they fitted it with the smaller JDAMs). That made it a weird kind of weapon to have, because that's only truly relevant in a first-strike scenario, unless they figured Russia would be firing silo-based missiles first and keeping mobile SS-25s for the second wave, who knows.

I remember they claimed the B-2 was going to be a TEL killer, but they stopped going on about it after Desert Storm... it seems that even with air superiority and a fairly little country to hide in, and plenty of recon assets and even soldiers covertly on the ground they didn't manage to destroy a single scud launcher before it launched its missile in Iraq... and they realised it would be impossible to attempt such a thing over Russia...

Which kinda makes the B-2 a bit of a white elephant unless you want it as a first strike aircraft to try to take out Russian nuclear capabilities in the hope that the remaining nuclear capacity can be dealt with using ABMs in various places.

If it gets to the point that you're launching nuclear-armed bombers at somebody, seriously, do you really think a recall is going to happen? If the other guy figures it out (which involves nothing more than a dude with a cellphone somewhere near the base), he's not going to hold back either, and then we'd best be figuring out how to quickly exit this rock because the Stone Age will have nothing on what's left.

Only if the launch of bombers is a prelude to launching ICBMs. If it is an escalation in a chess game then it is the most useful piece on the chess board because it is a serious threat yet can be recalled after it is moved to position.

What the US really needs in a new bomber is something like a Tu-160 with 5th gen engines that allow it to supercruise except just the same as the Su-24 used swing wings but the more sophisticated wing of the Su-27(34) is fixed, applying the same technology to the wing of the Tu-160 with a fixed flying wing shape in a wing that allows supersonic cruising without moving (making it cheaper and lighter and easier to make) and with the ability to super cruise in dry thrust should lead to good range and shorter flight times.


The result is a plane that can do the job of the B-1B and B-52 that doesn't cost as much as a B-2 but has some stealth features to make it more survivable.

But of course they will want it to be able to do everything which will make it even more expensive than a B-2 and you will only get 30 of them and the B-52 will continue to serve till 2050...

GarryB wrote:Being able to fly everywhere at mach 1.6 will greatly reduce transit times and could potentially lead to a new non stealthy civilian SST that is economically viable... just in time for the sillyness after the world economic recession...

I can see someone making a supersonic business jet, dudes like Branson would buy one, but not a true SST right now. Even if everyone's economy improves, developing an SST will still be hugely expensive. In all reality even though the Tu-144D was freaking awesome, and the Brits and French kept the Concorde going out of pride, the only sensible SST would've been ours in hindsight. 300 passengers might've made it economical once you survived the problems in the 70s. To make one today that's going to make money (because nobody is going for one that won't) you'll need a lot more than 100 or so passengers, and even then with the inflated price of oil you might still be in the red unless you make the entire thing first class and expensive as crap to ride on (hey, like Concorde).

It's too bad the Gulfstream/Sukhoi SSBJ didn't pan out. That could've had some interesting military applications. Slim down the center fuselage, add a small stores bay, and militarize it and you've got a) a quick reaction ASW/ASuW platform, and b) the basis for a MiG-31 replacement, although to do the latter you'd clearly have to do a bit more to the airframe.

I remember they claimed the B-2 was going to be a TEL killer, but they stopped going on about it after Desert Storm... it seems that even with air superiority and a fairly little country to hide in, and plenty of recon assets and even soldiers covertly on the ground they didn't manage to destroy a single scud launcher before it launched its missile in Iraq... and they realised it would be impossible to attempt such a thing over Russia...

Part of it was that we weren't watching Saddam's SCUD TELs 24/7 during the buildup, which was in part because I'm not sure we knew where they all were to begin with to be able to track them as they deployed. And JSTARs has nothing on the B-2's sensor system. Part of it was also political. JSTARS and the others weren't doing a damn thing to find SCUDs, the USAF was trying not to get the entire B-2 cancelled (only three test planes were airborne by the end of the war, the decision to only make 21 airframes was early 1992, and it didn't hit IOC until 1997), and calling attention to a capability similar to what they were dorking up in Iraq wouldn't have made it look good.

Only if the launch of bombers is a prelude to launching ICBMs. If it is an escalation in a chess game then it is the most useful piece on the chess board because it is a serious threat yet can be recalled after it is moved to position.

The threat is irrelevant when SSBNs are always at sea.

What the US really needs in a new bomber is something like a Tu-160 with 5th gen engines that allow it to supercruise except just the same as the Su-24 used swing wings but the more sophisticated wing of the Su-27(34) is fixed, applying the same technology to the wing of the Tu-160 with a fixed flying wing shape in a wing that allows supersonic cruising without moving (making it cheaper and lighter and easier to make) and with the ability to super cruise in dry thrust should lead to good range and shorter flight times.

I wonder what'd happen if you put four F135s in a B-1B. The JSF might be a dog but the engine is ridiculous. But...you'd still need a ton of tanker support. Spending the money to make an aerospace bomber removes the need for a) ever having to rely on foreign soil, and b) such a huge tanker fleet. And you achieve total win in the reaction time game.

The result is a plane that can do the job of the B-1B and B-52 that doesn't cost as much as a B-2 but has some stealth features to make it more survivable.

But of course they will want it to be able to do everything which will make it even more expensive than a B-2 and you will only get 30 of them and the B-52 will continue to serve till 2050...

The B-52 might outlive us all at this point just to prove it can. Plus, you can't get by with a semi-stealth design. If you want a traditional bomber, it's an LO design from the outset or it is simply not survivable. Can't be too small, or you're not VLO against VHF-band. A larger airframe, and you're more expensive. OK, so we'll just use it to lob ALCMs...at which point the question again is why bother, given the crapload of cruise missile shooters around.

All a bit baffling this. I suspect the problem might have been caused in part by a translation from Russian or a shortened quotation of what he actually said.

Its true that a Bear will not easily zig zag thro US defences into the middle of the USA in 2025 or later.A Tu-160 will also have problems. So that leaves stealth. I doubt the Pak-fa would have been started if it was incapable of handling US radar etc.

So this means there's more of a case for the Pak-Da, rather than less.

And we must look at the wider picture too. A Pak da can be used with conventional weapons as well. And against less advanced opponents. And also as a moveable launch platform quickly across the World. Pak Da launched Cruise missiles have many advantanges over SLBMs etc.

SLBMs and sub-based launches can never fully replace the possibilities of a supersonic plane based launch.

To me, the only think that should restrict their production number is the emergence of UAVs and hypersonic spaceplanes etc.
The former can be jammed. The latter are expensive and do not have much flexibility, and also don't have stealth.

I think using the achievements of the Tu160 AND Pak Fa to give a new Pak Da gives many great options including potential civillian ones.

Finally, maybe Rogozin was actually trying to draw attention to the cost-benefit analysis of JUST using a Pak Da for strategic nukes. With only 16 or so Tu160s in service ( instead of 30 courtesy of some idiocy from a Western leaning Ukraine govt), its quite expensive, if the plane doesnt have flexibility.

By far the best way is a suupersonic stealth Pak Da that can be used with non-nukes in other conflicts.
After all, treaties had limited the number of Tu160s that could be used.
So I say, build 60, 70 or whatever Pak Das and have extremely wide variety of uses.
Gives both economy AND military options.

Medvedev confirms plans to build new generation of strategic bombers

"Along with fifth-generation fighter will be developed and promising aviation complex long-range aircraft. I mean a new strategic bomber," - said Medvedev.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120609/669484801.html

I can see someone making a supersonic business jet, dudes like Branson would buy one, but not a true SST right now. Even if everyone's economy improves, developing an SST will still be hugely expensive.

You are looking at it the wrong way in two ways...

They are building a flying wing supersonic bomber... the money is going to be spent on most of the technology anyway.
A super cruising aircraft does not use much more fuel than a conventional subsonic aircraft because it uses dry thrust too... it just gets there faster... not so important on short trips but for long haul trips... say from anywhere to NZ or Australia then it is important.

The second point is that there will always be a market for expensive travel... there are plenty of rich people who will pay more to get there faster and in a bit of luxury... Concord did plenty of business when it was operating.

For a country the size of Russia it will reduce travel times from one side to the other and make places like Siberia more accessible.

Very simply the plane is already being developed and built... just another area where military demands can be turned to civilian needs... imagine what the world would be like if you took away all the aircraft used by the military... whether they were developed by the military and then used for civilian roles, or vice versa is not important... actually it is... made for the military means most of the costs are eliminated and in a SST that is critical because the costs will be fairly high, so the military absorbing those costs will make it much more viable.

Second an efficient flying wing design that can super cruise should have fairly low drag and good volume for passengers. As a first stage they could make it a subsonic design with civilianised engines that burn less fuel in a subsonic flight regime and are easier to maintain with longer hours etc.

In all reality even though the Tu-144D was freaking awesome, and the Brits and French kept the Concorde going out of pride, the only sensible SST would've been ours in hindsight. 300 passengers might've made it economical once you survived the problems in the 70s.

You are missing the point... a mach 2 SST is not going to be economical... just like a big expensive Rolls Royce Town Car will never be a choice for pulling a plow. Squeesing lots of passengers into it is not the solution because who is going to pay top dollar to be a Sardine?
The whole point of Concorde was comfort and speed... the rich enjoyed the comfort and the shorter transit times and the short queues for ticketing and boarding that they are used to for long distance flights in shorter flight times than their personal jet could offer, while middle class people would fly for the experience of traveling on Concorde.

You start putting 300 people on each plane and the ticket queues wlll be like 747 queues and the mystique will be gone and so will the rich passengers... and the middle class passengers are only a small percentage of your trade so having 300 seats will mean less people want to fly...

To make one today that's going to make money (because nobody is going for one that won't) you'll need a lot more than 100 or so passengers, and even then with the inflated price of oil you might still be in the red unless you make the entire thing first class and expensive as crap to ride on (hey, like Concorde).

Now you are getting it...

It's too bad the Gulfstream/Sukhoi SSBJ didn't pan out. That could've had some interesting military applications. Slim down the center fuselage, add a small stores bay, and militarize it and you've got a) a quick reaction ASW/ASuW platform, and b) the basis for a MiG-31 replacement, although to do the latter you'd clearly have to do a bit more to the airframe.

I agree, and Sukhoi probably have a few plans and prototypes of that and the S-60 and indeed the T-4 and are keen to get some real metal cut.
The Tu-160P design perhaps could be applied to the PAK DA to increase the numbers of airframes and reduce the numbers of types of aircraft in Russian AF service... imagine the size of the AESA it could carry in its nose and the linear AESAs in its fixed wing leading edge...

JSTARS and the others weren't doing a damn thing to find SCUDs, the USAF was trying not to get the entire B-2 cancelled (only three test planes were airborne by the end of the war, the decision to only make 21 airframes was early 1992, and it didn't hit IOC until 1997), and calling attention to a capability similar to what they were dorking up in Iraq wouldn't have made it look good.

Not to mention Iraqi deception in using all sorts of vehicles to transport missiles including buses and fuel tankers meant the job of isolating Scud launchers and their resupply vehicles was never going to be as easy as they suspected anyway. Remember Iraq is not Russia or the Soviet Union and for JSTARS to scan for targets it needs to use its radar... which reveals its position and makes it a target.

The threat is irrelevant when SSBNs are always at sea.

The threat is always relevant... just look at media reactions to Bears hundreds of kms from UK airspace... a major full scale launch of bombers to staging areas and employment of inflight refuelling aircraft to keep them there till the order is given is a step that would have a profound effect on the enemies posture, while at the same time it is a step that can be withdrawn and backed away from.

Certainly in a period of heightened tension extra SSBNs can be sent to sea, but this is just a gesture as they can hit their targets from port side.

With the bombers you are saying you are ready to fight and all of a sudden the number of nuclear platforms you can get with a first strike has suddenly diminished while the likely number of nuclear explosions on your territory has greatly increased...

I wonder what'd happen if you put four F135s in a B-1B. The JSF might be a dog but the engine is ridiculous. But...you'd still need a ton of tanker support. Spending the money to make an aerospace bomber removes the need for a) ever having to rely on foreign soil, and b) such a huge tanker fleet. And you achieve total win in the reaction time game.

Just looking at the improvement in performance of the Al-41 over the Al-31 (from 12.5 ton to 18 ton estimated) it would be interesting to see what they could do with the NK-32s in the Blackjack. The maths is fairly simple as the 25 ton thrust NK-32 is twice the power of the Al-31, so assuming the same ratio a 5th gen engine would be in the 36 ton thrust class range.

This would take the Tu-160 with four engines from 100 tons thrust to 144 tons thrust... almost two extra engines worth of power. For the Tu-22M3 with two engines producing 50 tons thrust to 72 tons thrust is like adding half another engine without the weight or drag or complication.

Options with existing aircraft could be to relax the top speed requirement for both aircraft and make the Tu-160 a twin engined aircraft that might be able to super cruise, and a single engined Tu-22M3 with transonic flight performance and longer range.

Of course the best solution is a fixed wing aircraft that is simpler and lighter structurally yet able to carry an enormous amount of fuel or weapons or a significant amount of both.

The new engines developed for the new bomber can be applied to the in service aircraft improving their performance, while at the same time giving real world testing for the engines in a realistic environment... a propfan model could be adapted for the Bear and the Blackjack and Backfire can be adapted for the new engine for the new bomber, which will simplify maintainence and support problems for the two different engines.

If you want a traditional bomber, it's an LO design from the outset or it is simply not survivable.

A traditional bomber is what? For use against strong air defences then stand off weapons can be used... both conventional and nuclear armed. For weaker opponents it can be used in the same way the US uses the B-52.

The thing is that a bomb truck is no longer needed as satellite guided bombs are more cost effective than dumb iron bombs... you know full well that hitting a target with a guided bomb that costs three times more than an iron bomb is a bargain because it will take more than three times more iron bombs to ensure a kill while doing more damage around the target (which may or may not be a problem).
In fact often a guided weapon means smaller bombs can be used which are cheaper to deliver too (less fuel required to carry lighter bombs etc).

Can't be too small, or you're not VLO against VHF-band. A larger airframe, and you're more expensive. OK, so we'll just use it to lob ALCMs...at which point the question again is why bother, given the crapload of cruise missile shooters around.

Choice.

A Blackjack can move 12,000km at speeds exceeding 800km/h to get to a launch point rapidly, from which it can launch a 5,000km range cruise missile that flys at high subsonic speed to its target... certainly most of its SSNs will be SSGNs and will be able to launch a similar missile, but it can't move to a launch position so rapidly, which might be a technicality you can say, but that same sub or surface ship cannot fly to Afghanistan with an Su-35 escort and orbit an area for a couple of days periodically releasing guided weapons to hit small point targets every few hours.

You could probably do the job with a group of Su-34s, except if the target you are looking for requires a very powerful weapon like the FOABs or something similar.

Previously Soviet strategic bombers were a one trick pony, but with their precision strike capability being added they suddenly become the most likely leg of the nuclear triad to actually be useful and practical and in many cases as Russia has pointed out with precision guided weapons targets that would otherwise have required a nuclear attack to be sure of defeating suddenly become viable targets with conventional weapons.

The current Russian bomber fleet is a strange bunch that could in theory simply be replaced with all Tu-160s, but the problem is that it is the most expensive of the two strategic and one tactic bombers they want to replace.

A more modern Tu-160 with a simpler lighter design without swing wings and with a more optimised shape is the best solution... and for its primary role of strategic nuclear deterrent it doesn't need to penetrate strong enemy air defences because it is not going to be a first strike weapon. Having a super LO bomber in large numbers would be destabilising as useful as it would be in local conflicts. It would also make it too expensive to afford to build in decent numbers which would leave you with the problem of 4 different types performing the same roles.

And we must look at the wider picture too. A Pak da can be used with conventional weapons as well. And against less advanced opponents. And also as a moveable launch platform quickly across the World. Pak Da launched Cruise missiles have many advantanges over SLBMs etc.

Good point... low flying cruise missiles are a challenge. Ballistic SLBMs are fast but have predictible trajectories and as long as you have missiles that can intercept them not the most difficult targets to deal with.

Low flying potentially stealthy cruise missiles on the other hand have that super war winning characteristic... surprise... which is the biggest and most effective killer in real combat.

We have plans for a 5G Strategic Bomber/ We dont need a new strategic bomber
We programm construction of aircraft carriers/We dont need aircraft carriers
We have a deal on Mistral/We dont buy from foreign countries
We will deploy new overseas naval bases/ We dont need them
We will order MiG-35/We are not going to buy it

You need to add context. When a general says maybe we don't need strategic bombers and then Medvedev says we need strategic bombers and they will be benefiting from the work on the 5th gen stealth fighter then I think there is little up for question... I rather suspect the general might have been questioning the time scale... the Tu-95s and Tu-160s are still very young aircraft and could probably soldier on for 3-4 decades to come if properly looked after.

The carrier debate centres around the need for naval air power.

Regarding Mistral the Russians and Soviets have a long history of buying foreign weapons... they bought gatling guns from gatling, the Maxim gun from Maxim, The DC-3 in the form of the Li-2 licence production model, there is a wide range of trucks and tractors they bought licences to produce during the 1930s and 1940s.

They will deploy new overseas naval bases but they need to build up their navy to make use of such bases so for the moment they will not ask for basing rights...

Regarding the Mig-35 I have heard them state they were going to buy some, but I have not seen them mention when they were going to buy or even allocate money for the purchase... we will just have to wait on this.

Personally I think skipping the Mig-35 and getting Mig to make a light 5th gen fighter using technology developed for the Mig-35 and Mig 1.44 and 1.42 and any new stuff they might be working on with the PAK FA would be more useful.

GarryB wrote:They are building a flying wing supersonic bomber...

The airline industry over here still isn't keen on flying-wing designs.

The second point is that there will always be a market for expensive travel... there are plenty of rich people who will pay more to get there faster and in a bit of luxury... Concord did plenty of business when it was operating.

You get luxury in first class nowadays regardless. The SST adds speed. The problem is that you're banking on rich people being able to consistently fill the seats and being willing to pay enough to make it profitable. Plus, you have a depressed airline industry that now has to be willing to cough up the money to buy the things in the first place, knowing going in that you only want to deal with a small part of the market.

For a country the size of Russia it will reduce travel times from one side to the other and make places like Siberia more accessible.

Hence part of the reason of the Tu-144 in the first place.

You are missing the point... a mach 2 SST is not going to be economical...

No no, not now, but rather back when the SSTs were being fielded.

To make one today that's going to make money (because nobody is going for one that won't) you'll need a lot more than 100 or so passengers, and even then with the inflated price of oil you might still be in the red unless you make the entire thing first class and expensive as crap to ride on (hey, like Concorde).

Now you are getting it...

The threat is always relevant... just look at media reactions to Bears hundreds of kms from UK airspace... a major full scale launch of bombers to staging areas and employment of inflight refuelling aircraft to keep them there till the order is given is a step that would have a profound effect on the enemies posture, while at the same time it is a step that can be withdrawn and backed away from.

Except we don't currently forward-deploy nuke-armed strategic bombers. They sit (or would sit) alert fully armed, as do the tankers.

Good point... low flying cruise missiles are a challenge. Ballistic SLBMs are fast but have predictible trajectories and as long as you have missiles that can intercept them not the most difficult targets to deal with.

You have to have an LO missile, or else it's nowhere near as hard as you think it is to find and blow them up. Iraq shot down a bunch of Tomahawks in 1991 with SA-8s. Low-flying missiles can use terrain masking with the proper flight profiles, but you've still got to worry about airborne threats. Advances in signal processing, etc. mean airborne radars are better equipped to deal with low-flying targets that might've simply been lost in the ground clutter previously.

The airline industry over here still isn't keen on flying-wing designs.

They have no operational experience with flying wings so lack of confidence would be normal.

The same could be said for jet engines which initially were not particularly very powerful and very fuel inefficient.

You get luxury in first class nowadays regardless. The SST adds speed.

SST adds more than just speed... travelling on the Concorde was special.

The problem is that you're banking on rich people being able to consistently fill the seats and being willing to pay enough to make it profitable.

Rich people like the idea of a rich people plane that middle class people can afford as a real treat but poor people could not afford. Not as expensive as your own personal jet, but still exclusive.

Plus, you have a depressed airline industry that now has to be willing to cough up the money to buy the things in the first place, knowing going in that you only want to deal with a small part of the market.

They are getting the plane and engines designed and built for them by the military... the risk is fairly low and to reduce it further they could easily make it a subsonic aircraft initially.

Hence part of the reason of the Tu-144 in the first place.

But the original engines made it uneconomic because they had to be kept in AB all the way. The later Tu-144 with the NK-32 engines could fly supersonic in dry thrust and made sense but the momentum had gone for SSTs.

No no, not now, but rather back when the SSTs were being fielded.

Even then these planes were expensive. The plane I am talking about flying in dry thrust and using sophisticated aerodynamics to fly at supersonic speeds.

Except we don't currently forward-deploy nuke-armed strategic bombers. They sit (or would sit) alert fully armed, as do the tankers.

At very low threat levels they will not be on alert fully armed. At medium threat levels they would be alert and fully armed... at high threat they will be airborne ready to be used or called back.

You have to have an LO missile, or else it's nowhere near as hard as you think it is to find and blow them up. Iraq shot down a bunch of Tomahawks in 1991 with SA-8s. Low-flying missiles can use terrain masking with the proper flight profiles, but you've still got to worry about airborne threats. Advances in signal processing, etc. mean airborne radars are better equipped to deal with low-flying targets that might've simply been lost in the ground clutter previously.

Against baby milk factories they are fine... as a nuclear deterrent the slow flying cruise missiles will be arriving several hours after the ICBMs and SLBMs have detonated... I rather doubt there will be any active airborne radars or interceptors for that matter...

Today? Maybe not. In ten years? Probably pretty close to no chance. But when it was conceived, which would be before Russia had widely distributed next-generation sensor systems? The B-2 would've been survivable. Nothing will ever be 100%, but "1 chance in a million" is a ridiculous stretch.

SOM, mine statement refer obviously to present situation and it is ,in no way and in any measure a stretch.
At today, the 20 B-2 Spirit (who, therefore, couldn't count even on numbers to hope to reach for "attrition's absorption" theirs intended targets) with its low-subsonic speed, lack of any serious stand-off ammunition ,virtually absent capability to manoeuvre, lack of an integrated EW defensive suit, lack of data-sharing capabilities, solitary mission profile and a radar signature barely sufficient for beginning of '80 years moderately dense IADS , would be incapable even only to come at some hundreds of km from Russian Federation border if political assent for an extraterritorial interception would be provided.

SOM you must take into account that the real and average figures for RCS of this type of "stealth" aircraft, in a combat scenario are literally several orders of magnitude greater than the sensationalistic ones usually circulating on not educated media (which refer, instead, to totally unrepresentative and hypercritical head-on reradiating cones).

This simple article ,on the subject, from the "Bulletin of Russian Academy of Sciences", Vol. 73 ,n 9 of October 2003 by Andrey Nikolaevich Lagarkov - Director of the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetic - and Mikhail Pogosyan - ...well i think it don't need any presentation- can give to you a more sound and educated picture of the real terms of the question by Academics of the same Scientific Institutions where the entire Physics fundamentals of modern stealth technology (included American specific sector) was developed .


http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM



B-2 also in a perfectly iso-planar head-on radar illumination's angle (an impossible occurrence against long range ground based radars in a multilayered mobile IAD...) would present an average RCS not inferior to 0,1 - 0,08 Square meters.
SOM i image that you are perfectly capable to realize now what was the reasons for the abrupt decision ,at the middle of 1980 years, by part of American military Command to change suddenly the requirements and the flight profile of B-2 Spirit from high altitude to low altitude terrain following....

If the main road isn't in the direction of "hey look at this we've stayed in orbit for over a year while nobody knows what the hell we're really doing" then I really don't see the point in wasting the money on the "B-3".

Yes SOM ,exactly this direction, and i can assure you that several international players are not only perfectly aware of the aims of those "researchs" ,but take the immense military menace that this road will create very, very, very, very seriously working very hard ,already today, to find reliable ways for theirs neutralizations (...over naturally at working, at theirs own times, on theirs offensive revolutionary concepts ).

The USA's "road" for perspective offensive means -founded around new near-space vehicles with virtually infinite autonomy - will represent, in the next 20-30 years, a menace enormously greater and difficult to counter, in a relatively brief time window, than what "stealth" represented in the '80 years and you can bet that B-3 will NOT be a strategic bomber in the way B-2 was ,but a "transitory" element of the new offensive scheme (useful for dissociate the operational capabilities of the new attack elements from fixed and....computable.... orbits).

We DO have CVBGs, and we DO have a buttload of naval platforms capable of ripple-firing bunches of conventional LACMs, so you don't need a new airframe for intimidation or cruise-missile conventional strike.

Yes SOM ,but the problem is against what opponent (considering also the very fast ascent of China in the next decade) a CVBGs in travel in plain Ocean will still represent a credible way to deliver conventional fire power ,instead of big ,concentrated ,easily detectable -by both ground and space based sensors- ,paying targetw.

I image that anyone can remember the famous response of Admiral Hyman Rickover to Senator Robert Taft on what was the average expected operational life of USA's nuclear carriers in an hypothetical not thermonuclear WWIII scenario against URSS , the response was : " From various estimates ....not more than two days" .

CVBGs are great for power projection and central in the American capability to extend its military and political influence worldwide ,the problem is that when an opponent surpass a precise threshold in conventional military sophistication, them transform suddenly in big ,easily detectable and almost impossible to defend "paying targets" ,which you couldn't employ offensively anymore to exert pressure on this competitor because theirs destruction through conventional asymmetrical means would NOT justify a nuclear response.



Best regards.

Mindstorm , I would suggest you read the book " Russian Strategic Aviation Today Yefim Gordon (Author), Dmitriy Komissarov " link

This should help you find answer to many of your question on Russian Strategic Aviation.

GarryB wrote:But the original engines made it uneconomic because they had to be kept in AB all the way. The later Tu-144 with the NK-32 engines could fly supersonic in dry thrust and made sense but the momentum had gone for SSTs.

The NK-144s were used basically because they had to be. The intended production engine was the RD-36-51, trialled on Tu-144 77105 and installed on all of the Tu-144Ds (77111-77115). This was a non-afterburning engine that provided the range that was desired, but it came along too late to save the program, unfortunately. The NK-32s were installed in Tu-144D 77114 when it was remade as the Tu-144LL for SST research. I believe speed went down slightly to Mach 2 but range did increase a bit over the Tu-144D, but that was just a test program.

SO we agree that the original Tu-144 had sub optimal engines and that later developed engines made it pretty much what it should have been.

I would suggest that new 5th gen proper bomber engines (Not recycled 5th gen jet fighter engines) would make a flying wing aircraft with horizontal tail surfaces that allow supersonic flight would make an ideal transporter for people or bombs/weapons as long as the requirements are not too ambitious...

Supercruising at mach 1.5-1.8 would enable flight times for long trips to be made shorter and more comfortable without the high cost of trying to fly at mach 2.4.

I doubt we would see supersonic aircraft soon there are concerns on its noise when flying over populated area and fuel consumption factor.

Its not economically viable to run a supersonic jet presently or even in near future.

All future design shown by Boeing and Airbus are subsonic aircraft with better efficiency and fuel economy.

You are missing the point... super cruise... supersonic flight in dry thrust means fuel consumption is not that much different from subsonic flight because of higher speed.

Remember fuel consumption is measured in weight of fuel burned per energy created per hour so burning slightly more per hour to fly much faster can work out using less fuel because you don't need to run the engines as long.

There is no reason why this new design has to fly supersonically over populated areas... the greatest areas of benefit in terms of reduced time of flight would be over long distances... across the Atlantic and Pacific for example.

I would also call into question your logic that because Boeing is not working on something that super cruises then there is no point in doing it... when Boeing was working on its SST the idea of supersonic civilian travel was the way of the future and all subsonic aircraft would be obsolete... till they decided they failed and then the future became huge large capacity airliners... and in this day of airport security big low cost jets means hours or days in security checks just to board the aircraft.

The biggest mistake the Russians could make is to try to make a B-2 copy.

They don't need a plane like that... they don't need a plane that is that expensive.

A flying wing design offers low drag and relatively small RCS which are both useful features for aircraft.

Adding an extended centre section and horizontal tail gives sufficient down force to allow the transition between subsonic and supersonic flight, so a tailed flying wing should be able to super cruise, while a pure flying wing cannot.

The Russians have also already experimented with wing mounted radar arrays, so an AWACS type variant with AESA antenna arrays along the wing leading edge offer interesting performance. The correct materials and structure along with proper shaping and coatings could offer a low RCS fairly easily, while sophisticated surface mounted radar antenna along with sophisticated beam forming software could lead to active radar cancellation techniques that would be far superior to mere jamming to hide the aircraft or flight of aircraft.

Certainly supporting QWIP long, medium, and short wave IIR systems would also offer passive sensors for theatre operations against a range of ground targets.

The size of the aircraft would make it ideal for a range of ground penetrating bombs and its supersonic flight speed should allow high altitude high speed drops to maximise penetration of very large bombs. Perhaps even a dedicated theatre bomber with a downwards facing ground penetrating radar could be used for some model... perhaps with the correct beam shaping algorythms they could be used to penetrate sea water to search for submarines... most of which operate in less than 500m of water operationally.

The usefulness of such a high speed aircraft with long range and powerful radar potential suggests also a viable replacement for the Mig-31 as an interceptor.

It wont have the peak speed of the Mig but it will compensate with high average speed plus longer range and endurance and on board payload of rather more missiles... perhaps including IIR guided weapons for use against stealth aircraft.

Austin wrote:I doubt we would see supersonic aircraft soon there are concerns on its noise when flying over populated area and fuel consumption factor.

Blackbird crews in the US laughed at the SST opposition in the 1970s when the issue of sonic booms were brought up. They flew all over the place at Mach 3+ regularly, and managed not to blow out windows or deafen the population. Plus, Discovery channel did an experiment a year or so ago where they built a house in the desert (one room, but it had windows, was built to code, and there were breakables inside) and got the USN to fly an F/A-18 at supersonic speeds directly over it at various altitudes. I think they had to get right down around 500 feet AGL or so for anything negative to happen inside. Otherwise it was just loud. They weren't doing this at high altitudes, either. I think they started at like 10,000 feet AGL and worked down to the deck. Hell, when I lived in Germany in the 80s the RAF and the Luftwaffe regularly enjoyed booming my house. Ergo, I think all of the sonic boom complaints are, to a degree, overblown.

I remember reading that during testing of the Tu-160 that an aircraft broke the sound barrier above a small village and the mayor of the village send a bill for the windows that were broken to the local air field commander.

I have seen the Mythbusters epidsode where they tried to break glass with an F-18 and nothing significant happened till they got quite low...

And to be perfectly honest when the idea of SST was new and fresh there was no opposition to supersonic aircraft anywhere... the main driver for the bans for overland supersonic flight by civilian aircraft was when the US SST was cancelled as a failure... and I rather suspect it was an attempt to disuade airlines from buying the Concorde and making it a success.

It is obviously a limited use aircraft... its main clientèle is going to be the rich who expect luxury and the odd businessman for which a few hours saved on what would otherwise be a long flight is worth the extra money.

The extra speed really only makes sense on the very long trips like across the atlantic or pacific.

It would be interesting if they kept the inflight refuelling capability and went for very long range flights like London to Sydney without stopping... Of course that would mean two tankers... one to keep them topped up with fuel and a second to keep them topped up with booze and caviar...

Rogozin return on its declarations on the Future System for Strategic Long Range Aviation (an expression that i strongly prefer to the classic "Long Range Bomber"....if we talk of a weapon system which would meet the requirements in a technological environment 30-40 years from now...) and clarify what was the meaning of its words .

I can only add that what expressed by Rogozin represent by far the most enlightened, grounded and far-sighted position ,under both a a doctrinal and technical point of view, among all the Russian leading figures.


http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120619/174119742.html


“I am for PAK DA but it should not be a copy of the B-2. We need to look at the horizon and develop hypersonic long-range aviation, civil and military,” Rogozin said on his Twitter blog on Tuesday afternoon. The B-2 is an American long-range stealth bomber developed by Northrop, which became the most expensive aircraft ever built and is in service with the U.S. Air Force in very small numbers."

"I'm ready to insist on my point of view," Rogozin said on Tuesday on his Twitter blog. "With modern air defense systems, these targets will be destroyed on the way,".

Low Subsonic aircraft, with limited payload ,in need to enter directly in the airspace of a major enemy defended by its IADS to accomplish its mission ,that can rely ,in order to survive, only on the delusional idea to don't be tracked, has been already a scorching ...and very, very costly...mistake for ours over Atlantic "friends" (with an entire VLO strategic bomber project suddenly bended, in the work, to a low flying terrrain following profile bomber and ,after, discontinued at only 21 aircraft , becoming so the most expensive aircraft designed to conduct first day bombing in a....Libya/Kossovo-like airspace).


Russian Federation cannot live on the bet that ,in the next 20-25 years, Air Defense systems on the level of the most modern domestic available today will not be widely deployed by Western powers to defend theirs most critical military installations ; the devastating outcome would be fatally only one :" ....these targets will be destroyed on the way ."


Americans have never commited the same mistake two times in a row in theirs entire history and anyone can easily realize on what them point today for theirs future strategical offensive mean.
In some critical segments of this new "road" Russia can even boast some pasted fundamental scientifical achievements and breakthroughs which could put it in a distinctive advantage ,if properly capitalized.
To the contrary the temptation to choose, today ,the option with the lowest financial and technical requirements will, on the long, reveal itself as the most horrible planning mistake of the last two decades.

Like I said before Russia does not need a B-2 copy.

They don't need a first strike bomber.

What they could use is a long range aircraft that is not so visible to radar that gets to where it is going fairly quickly and can be used in a range of roles and situations.

Hypersonic bombers would be a real challenge and I think would be a step too far for the next decade or so.

I think for the strategic role however a combination of stealth and very high speed is the solution to modern air defences, so a hypersonic long range missile and stealthy subsonic cruise missiles would be the ideal combination of weapons that will allow the new bomber to perform its strategic role at minimal risk and cost.

The added bonus is that the aircraft will be cheaper and can be used in smaller conflicts either also delivering long range cruise missiles of different types, or in cases where there is no air threat as in Afghanistan etc it could deliver a range of guided air to ground weapons.

Tu-160 could be modified for the same role, but it makes rather more sense to start a design from scratch with a more sophisticated fixed wing and stealthy flying wing design with a horizontal tail structure to allow super cruising... resulting in a platform they can built perhaps 300 of, with maybe 100 being strategic/theatre bombers, and the of the remainder perhaps 150 could be used as PAK DA-P or interceptor Mig-31 type replacement aircraft with a different configuration perhaps to allow higher speeds over shorter distances with a significant payload of long range AAMs and perhaps ABM missiles. This leaves about 50 aircraft that could be used as AWACS, high altitude JSTARS type aircraft, and even inflight refuelling tankers. Perhaps the non strategic bomber models can have a wing crank of a few degrees to make it clear from satellite that they are not the strategic bombers for verification purposes.

As scramjet technology matures then experimental hypersonic versions could be tested for recon or other roles, but I think it would be inefficient to turn the standard Russian supersonic bomber into a hypersonic bomber.

I think the best thing the Russian AF did was to start upgrades on its heavy Tupolevs to make them conventional bombers as well as cruise missile carriers.

Initially they could fund the Brahmos II and perhaps this secret hypersonic long range missile we have heard snippits about and then from that they could build a long range hypersonic cruise missile... they already have the Kh-101/102 series weapons as stealthy long range cruise missiles for strategic use.

Like I said before Russia does not need a B-2 copy.

I agree perfectly.

What they could use is a long range aircraft that is not so visible to radar that gets to where it is going fairly quickly and can be used in a range of roles and situations.

Also here i agree GarryB ,but the central question remain anyhow WHERE this bomber need to go in order to haev a chance to execute its startegical mission; the main problem of a "classical" VLO design is that it must carry its weapons internally and this element render very difficult (if not even impossible) to include among its option even only subsonic stand-off strategic cruise missiles ....for remain totally silent on stand-off supersonic missiles or perspective strategic hypersonic missiles.

In a war against a major enemy also today the most crucial elements would become exclusively :
1) Range of the nuclear cruise missiles delivered
2) The speed of the delivering aircraft .

Those elements would decide :

1) How much far from your defended airspace your bombers should need to go in order to deliver theirs cruise missiles cargo (with the enormous impact on : sortie rate between nuclear cruise missile delivery , fuel/repair/crew's rotation requirements , options of attack's vectors for destroy a particular enemy target
2) How much opposing aircraft -depending on theirs airbase geographical position- and with what chance of success are available to your enemy for intecept your strategical bombers before missile delivery (even with the aid of space based SIGINT and sensor assets)
3) The chance of your bombers to evade from interception also after missile delivery ; in the event that enemy aircraft would choose to continue the enegagement against the delivering platforms.

An old Professor of mine was never tired to repeat that also in very difficult problem almost anything could be reduced to : Space ,Time and Energy Potentials and that anyone that was convinved that some specific particular of that problem would be much important or have a bigger role than those was simply self-delusional.

Hypersonic bombers would be a real challenge and I think would be a step too far for the next decade or so.

GarryB on that i have a totally different opinion from you .
At maximum here we talk to don't allow ,for the umpteenth time in the recent hystory to allow western powers to capitalize some of our most promising or even revolutionary scientifical achievements and breakthroughs strongly investing in theirs large scale applicative realization to feed theirs most perspective programs (the most recent examples of that being the entire modern theoretical architecture of "Stealth" technology which opened the possibility for F-117/B-2 and F-22's realization ,supersonic VTOL propulsion used today in F-35 and rocket ramjet engine propulsion allowing the realization of the European Meteor AAM).

The problem here is simply to create a program capable to channel in the same direction ,instead to split, the efforts of the personel of dozen of different scientifical Institutes and ,above all, strongly support an efficient and prompt engineerization of any theoretical achievement .

A project like that of which we talk here wasn't anymore a scientifical challenge in Russia already more than ten years ago ,not ten years from now ; to the contrary ,over the Ocean, some solutions and achievements ( some informations on which penetrated in the West after URSS's dissolution) was stimed not only simply revolutionary but opened the road for enormmous,and enormously funded, R&D/applicative project in the field.

This video can give to you an hint of what we talk:

The problem here is simply to create a program capable to channel in the same direction ,instead to split, the efforts of the personel of dozen of different scientifical Institutes and ,above all, strongly support an efficient and prompt engineerization of any theoretical achievement .

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be funding for hypersonic aircraft, but I think the initial focus should be on hypersonic cruise missiles first and once the scramjet propulsion problems have been worked out then they could be applied to a later model replacement or upgrade for PAK DA.

The T-4 was a mach 3 bomber developed by Sukhoi but when the program was handed to Tupolev to build they ended up with the much more conservative Tu-160 which was an amalgamation of the Tu-144 and other aircraft models they were working on the time. The only real risk was a swing wing aircraft of that size which is still an impressive result.

I think the key for Russia is that you don't need stealthy or hypersonic bombers when you can have stealthy or hypersonic weapons.

Even supercruising at mach 1.8 these bombers will not get to launch positions before the ICBMs and SLBMs have already laid waste to the enemy AD network. In a conventional role air superiority needs to be achieved before sending in bombers... the alternative would be UCAV bombers like Skat for hitting ground targets.

The problems of internal carriage can be addressed with missiles with multiple warheads so even if the hypersonic cruise missile payload on a strategic mission is only two missiles the obvious response is to fit ten free fall warheads in each missile so it can fly high and fast and release 10 nuclear weapons over enemy territory each to compensate that there are only two missiles carried. It could be the same with very low flying stealthy cruise missiles that can drop delayed fuse warheads that don't detonate till the missile has left the area.

The Russians don't need super accurate nukes... warheads to land on major cities to maximise the number of people killed should be the focus because the goal is not to win the nuclear war by taking out their nuclear weapons, it is to prevent a war in the first place by making the consequences too dire and frightening to even consider.

I am sure that Russia could build a hypersonic bomber but the operational costs will be very high. The future potential for launching payloads directly into space is exciting, but the new engines required would make it quite expensive.

I would like to see a 5th generation version of the NK-32 engines with increased thrust for supercruise potential, and a variable bypass that allows ramjet or even scramjet operation will require an ultra optimised low drag shape... a flying wing with a fairly extreme sweep would be useful, but it will need a horizontal tail surface for trans sonic flight.

Personally I think a manned supercruising flying wing with horizontal tail structure with a detachable sharp arrow shaped hypersonic detachable UCAV carrying 20 small nuclear bombs that it can deliver from high altitude on its way through enemy territory could be the best compromise with the super cruising part used as both a theatre bomber including internal and external weapons and as a strategic bomber with the UCAV fitted conformally to attack targets at hypersonic speed.

Or something different.

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be funding for hypersonic aircraft, but I think the initial focus should be on hypersonic cruise missiles

GarryB hypersonic cruise missiles are already in very very advanced stadium of work ,but the point continue to remain the same : an hypersonic missile with strategical range (at least in the league of today Kh-102) would have technical requirements and ,above all COSTS (in particular in reason the design solutions and very complex materials necessary to sustain the immense thermal, magnetic and kinetic sollicitations linked to high hypersonic speed regime for a very protracted span of time) that would produce a price tag for it not significantly lower than that of a startegical hypersonic bomber.

Practically investing your resources in the design and construction of suborbital strategical hypersonic bombers (capable of speed in the order of Mach 15 - Mach 20 ), you effectively multiply of several orders of magnitude your nuclear delivery potential in respect to a full hypersonic missiles approach at expenditure 's parity.


As already mentioned previously, domestic Scientifical Institutes can boast a very wide lead in experience, applications and validated knowledges in this field in respect to any other world-wide competitor, to the point that (as already happened in the past for other segments now become even the "defining" technologies of foreign military .... ) the world trend in the field outside ex-URSS nations has been outlined or ,at least, heavily influenced by domestic publications or experimentation's results penetrated in...or even sold to....foreign scentifical community.

Therefore a coordinated effort in this direction can result, in the long term, in the establishment of a completely new industrial sector ,military and civilian ,critical in progressively distantiate Russian Federations' economical grow potential from raw material market's fluctuations.

If anyone is interested we had an interesting discussion on the PAK-DA on mp.net starting round about here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197506-Russian-Armed-Forces-News-amp-Discussion-thread&p=6225296&highlight=#post6225296

A lot of good points were raised, I of course had my own opinion, others had theirs, etc...